WT guidelines for disfellowshipping
Disfellowshiping & Disassociating
*** Kingdom Ministry August 2002 pp.3-4 Display Christian Loyalty When a Relative Is Disfellowshipped ***
Display Christian Loyalty When a Relative Is Disfellowshipped
1 The bond between family members can be very strong. This brings a test upon a Christian when a marriage mate, a child, a parent, or another close relative is disfellowshipped or has disassociated himself from the congregation. (Matt. 10:37) How should loyal Christians treat such a relative? Does it make a difference if the person lives in your household? First, let us review what the Bible says on this subject, the principles of which apply equally to those who are disfellowshipped and to those who disassociate themselves.
2 How to Treat Expelled Ones: God’s Word commands Christians not to keep company or fellowship with a person who has been expelled from the congregation: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. . . . Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.” (1 Cor. 5:11, 13) Jesus’ words recorded at Matthew 18:17 also bear on the matter: “Let [the expelled one] be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.” Jesus’ hearers well knew that the Jews of that day had no fraternization with Gentiles and that they shunned tax collectors as outcasts. Jesus was thus instructing his followers not to associate with expelled ones.–See The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, pages 18-20.
3 This means that loyal Christians do not have spiritual fellowship with anyone who has been expelled from the congregation. But more is involved. God’s Word states that we should ‘not even eat with such a man.’ (1 Cor. 5:11) Hence, we also avoid social fellowship with an expelled person. This would rule out joining him in a picnic, party, ball game, or trip to the mall or theater or sitting down to a meal with him either in the home or at a restaurant.
4 What about speaking with a disfellowshipped person? While the Bible does not cover every possible situation, 2 John 10 helps us to get Jehovah’s view of matters: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.” Commenting on this, The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 25, says: “A simple ‘Hello’ to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?”
5 Indeed, it is just as page 31 of the same issue of The Watchtower states: “The fact is that when a Christian gives himself over to sin and has to be disfellowshiped, he forfeits much: his approved standing with God; . . . sweet fellowship with the brothers, including much of the association he had with Christian relatives.”
6 In the Immediate Household: Does this mean that Christians living in the same household with a disfellowshipped family member are to avoid talking to, eating with, and associating with that one as they go about their daily activities? The Watchtower of April 15, 1991, in the footnote on page 22, states: “If in a Christian’s household there is a disfellowshipped relative, that one would still be part of the normal, day-to-day household dealings and activities.” Thus, it would be left up to members of the family to decide on the extent to which the disfellowshipped family member would be included when eating or engaging in other household activities. And yet, they would not want to give brothers with whom they associate the impression that everything is the same as it was before the disfellowshipping occurred.
7 However, The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 28, points out regarding the disfellowshipped or disassociated person: “Former spiritual ties have been completely severed. This is true even with respect to his relatives, including those within his immediate family circle. . . . That will mean changes in the spiritual fellowship that may have existed in the home. For example, if the husband is disfellowshiped, his wife and children will not be comfortable with him conducting a family Bible study or leading in Bible reading and prayer. If he wants to say a prayer, such as at mealtime, he has a right to do so in his own home. But they can silently offer their own prayers to God. (Prov. 28:9; Ps. 119:145, 146) What if a disfellowshiped person in the home wants to be present when the family reads the Bible together or has a Bible study? The others might let him be present to listen if he will not try to teach them or share his religious ideas.”
8 If a minor child living in the home is disfellowshipped, Christian parents are still responsible for his upbringing. The Watchtower of November 15, 1988, page 20, states: “Just as they will continue to provide him with food, clothing, and shelter, they need to instruct and discipline him in line with God’s Word. (Proverbs 6:20-22; 29:17) Loving parents may thus arrange to have a home Bible study with him, even if he is disfellowshipped. Maybe he will derive the most corrective benefit from their studying with him alone. Or they may decide that he can continue to share in the family study arrangement.”–See also The Watchtower of October 1, 2001, pages 16-17.
9 Relatives Not in the Household: “The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home,” states The Watchtower of April 15, 1988, page 28. “It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum,” in harmony with the divine injunction to “quit mixing in company with anyone” who is guilty of sinning unrepentantly. (1 Cor. 5:11) Loyal Christians should strive to avoid needless association with such a relative, even keeping business dealings to an absolute minimum.–See also The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, pages 29-30.
10 The Watchtower addresses another situation that can arise: “What if a close relative, such as a son or a parent who does not live in the home, is disfellowshiped and subsequently wants to move back there? The family could decide what to do depending on the situation. For example, a disfellowshiped parent may be sick or no longer able to care for himself financially or physically. The Christian children have a Scriptural and moral obligation to assist. (1 Tim. 5:
. . . What is done may depend on factors such as the parent’s true needs, his attitude and the regard the head of the household has for the spiritual welfare of the household.”–The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, pages 28-9.
11 As for a child, the same article continues: “Sometimes Christian parents have accepted back into the home for a time a disfellowshiped child who has become physically or emotionally ill. But in each case the parents can weigh the individual circumstances. Has a disfellowshiped son lived on his own, and is he now unable to do so? Or does he want to move back primarily because it would be an easier life? What about his morals and attitude? Will he bring ‘leaven’ into the home?–Gal. 5:9.”
12 Benefits of Being Loyal to Jehovah: Cooperating with the Scriptural arrangement to disfellowship and shun unrepentant wrongdoers is beneficial. It preserves the cleanness of the congregation and distinguishes us as upholders of the Bible’s high moral standards. (1 Pet. 1:14-16) It protects us from corrupting influences. (Gal. 5:7-9) It also affords the wrongdoer an opportunity to benefit fully from the discipline received, which can help him to produce “peaceable fruit, namely, righteousness.”–Heb. 12:11.
13 After hearing a talk at a circuit assembly, a brother and his fleshly sister realized that they needed to make adjustments in the way they treated their mother, who lived elsewhere and who had been disfellowshipped for six years. Immediately after the assembly, the man called his mother, and after assuring her of their love, he explained that they could no longer talk to her unless there were important family matters requiring contact. Shortly thereafter, his mother began attending meetings and was eventually reinstated. Also, her unbelieving husband began studying and in time was baptized.
14 Loyally upholding the disfellowshipping arrangement outlined in the Scriptures demonstrates our love for Jehovah and provides an answer to the one that is taunting Him. (Prov. 27:11) In turn, we can be assured of Jehovah’s blessing. King David wrote regarding Jehovah: “As for his statutes, I shall not turn aside from them. With someone loyal you will act in loyalty.”–2 Sam. 22:23, 26.
[Emphasis Added]
*** Official Jehovah’s Witnesses Media Relations Web Site, March 18, 2002 ***
[ http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm]
Beliefs—Frequently Asked Questions
[…]
Do you shun former members?
Those who simply cease to be involved in the faith are not shunned. In compliance with the Scriptures, however, members can be expelled for serious unchristian conduct, such as stealing, drunkenness, or adultery, if they do not repent and cease such actions. Disfellowshipping does not sever family ties. Disfellowshipped members may continue to attend religious services, and if they wish, they may receive pastoral visits. They are always welcome to return to the faith.—1 Corinthians 5:11-13.
[Emphasis Added]
*** Official Jehovah’s Witnesses Media Relations Web Site, July 20, 2002 ***
[ http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm]
Beliefs—Frequently Asked Questions
[…]
Do you shun former members?
Those who simply leave the faith are not shunned. If, however, someone unrepentantly practices serious sins, such as drunkenness, stealing, or adultery, he will be disfellowshipped and such an individual is avoided by former fellow-worshipers. Every effort is made to help wrongdoers. But if they are unrepentant, the congregation needs to be protected from their influence. The Bible clearly directs: “Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.” (1 Corinthians 5:13) What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah’s Witnesses? The spiritual ties he had with his family changes, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings can continue. As for disfellowshipped relatives not living in the same household, Jehovah’s Witnesses apply the Bible’s counsel: “Quit mixing with them.” (1 Corinthians 5:11) Disfellowshipped individuals may continue to attend religious services and, if they wish, they may receive spiritual counsel from the elders with a view to their being restored. They are always welcome to return to the faith if they reject the improper course of conduct for which they were disfellowshipped.
[Emphasis Added]
*** Official Jehovah’s Witnesses Media Relations Web Site, August 28, 2003 ***
[ http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm]
Beliefs—Frequently Asked Questions
[…]
Do you shun former members?
Those who become inactive in the congregation, perhaps even drifting away from association with fellow believers, are not shunned. In fact, special effort is made to reach out to them and rekindle their spiritual interest. If, however, someone unrepentantly practices serious sins, such as drunkeness, stealing or adultery, he will be disfellowshipped and such an individual is avoided by former fellow-worshipers. Every effort is made to help wrongdoers. But if they are unrepentant, the congregation needs to be protected from their influence. The Bible clearly states: ‘Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.’ (1 Corinthians 5:13) Those who formally say they do not want to be part of the organization any more are also avoided. What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah’s Witnesses? The spiritual ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings can continue. As for disfellowshipped relatives not living in the same household, Jehovah’s Witnesses apply the Bible’s counsel: “Quit mixing with them.” (1 Corinthians 5:11) Disfellowshipped individuals may continue to attend religious services and, if they wish, they may receive spiritual counsel from the elders with a view to their being restored. They are always welcome to return to the faith if they reject the improper course of conduct for which they were disfellowshipped.
[Emphasis Added]
*** Watchtower April 1, 1920, pp.100, 101 ***
We would not refuse to treat one as a brother because he did not believe the Society is the Lord’s channel. If others see it in a different way, that is their privilege. There should be full liberty of conscience.
[Emphasis Added]
*** Nov 15, 1952 Watchtower pp.703-704 Questions from Readers ***
Questions from Readers
• In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship?—P.C., Ontario, Canada.
We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. “Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, . . . And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee.”—Deut. 13:6-11, AS.
Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. However, God’s law requires us to recognize their being disfellowshiped from his congregation, and this despite the fact that the law of the land in which we live requires us under some natural obligation to live with and have dealings with such apostates under the same roof.
God’s law does not allow a marriage partner to dismiss his mate because his mate becomes disfellowshiped or apostatizes. Neither will the law of the land in most cases allow a divorce to be granted on such grounds. The faithful believer and the apostate or disfellowshiped mate must legally continue to live together and render proper marriage dues one to the other. A father may not legally dismiss his minor child from his household because of apostasy or disfellowshiping, and a minor child or children may not abandon their father or their mother just because he becomes unfaithful to God and his theocratic organization. The parent must by laws of God and of man fulfill his parental obligations to the child or children as long as they are dependent minors, and the child or children must render filial submission to the parent as long as legally underage or as long as being without parental consent to depart from the home. Of course, if the children are of age, then there can be a departing and breaking of family ties in a physical way, because the spiritual ties have already snapped.
If children are of age and continue to associate with a disfellowshiped parent because of receiving material support from him or her, then they must consider how far their spiritual interests are being endangered by continuing under this unequal arrangement, and whether they can arrange to support themselves, living apart from the fallen-away parent. Their continuing to receive material support should not make them compromise so as to ignore the disfellowshiped state of the parent. If, because of acting according to the disfellowship order of the company of God’s people, they become threatened with a withdrawal of the parental support, then they must be willing to take such consequences.
Satan’s influence through the disfellowshiped member of the family will be to cause the other member or members of the family who are in the truth to join the disfellowshiped member in his course or in his position toward God’s organization. To do this would be disastrous, and so the faithful family member must recognize and conform to the disfellowship order. How would or could this be done while living under the same roof or in personal, physical contact daily with the disfellowshiped? In this way: By refusing to have religious relationship with the disfellowshiped.
The marriage partner would render the marriage dues according to the law of the land and in due payment for all material benefits bestowed and accepted. But to have religious communion with the disfellowshiped person—no, there would be none of that! The faithful marriage partner would not discuss religion with the apostate or disfellowshiped and would not accompany that one to his (or her) place of religious association and participate in the meetings with that one. As Jesus said: “If he does not listen even to the congregation [which was obliged to disfellowship him], let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector [to Jehovah's sanctified nation].” (Matt. 18:17, NW) Hurt to such one would not be authorized, but there would be no spiritual or religious fellowshiping.
The same rule would apply to those who are in the relation of parent and child or of child and parent. What natural obligation falls upon them according to man’s law and God’s law the faithful parent or the faithful child will comply with. But as for rendering more than that and having religious fellowship with such one in violation of the congregation’s disfellowship order—no, none of that for the faithful one! If the faithful suffers in some material or other way for the faithful adherence to theocratic law, then he must accept this as suffering for righteousness’ sake.
The purpose of observing the disfellowship order is to make the disfellowshiped one realize the error of his way and to shame him, if possible, so that he may be recovered, and also to safeguard your own salvation to life in the new world in vindication of God. (2 Thess. 3:14, 15; Titus 2:
[Emphasis Added]
*** Watchtower 1981 Sept 15 p.20-26 Disfellowshiping—How to View It ***
Disfellowshiping—How to View It
“O Jehovah, . . . who will reside in your holy mountain? He who is walking faultlessly and practicing righteousness.”—Ps. 15:1, 2.
JEHOVAH is righteous and holy. Though he is merciful and understanding with imperfect humans, he expects those worshiping him to reflect his holiness by trying to uphold his righteous standards.—Ps. 103:8-14; Num. 15:40.
2 An Israelite who deliberately violated God’s commands, such as those against apostasy, adultery or murder, was to be cut off, put to death. (Num. 15:30,31; 35:31; Deut. 13:1-5; Lev. 20:10) This firmness in upholding God’s reasonable and just standards was good for all Israelites, for it helped to maintain the congregation’s purity. And it served to deter anyone from spreading corruption among the people who had God’s name on them.
3 In the first century C.E. the Jews under Roman rule did not have the authority to administer the death penalty. (John 18:28-31) But a Jew guilty of violating the Law could be expelled from the synagogue. An effect of this severe punishment was that other Jews would shun or avoid the expelled person. It is said that others would not even have commercial transactions with him beyond selling him the necessities of life.—John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2.
4 After the Christian congregation was formed, it replaced the Jewish nation in having God’s name upon it. (Matt. 21:43; Acts 15:14) Accordingly, Christians could rightly be expected to uphold Jehovah’s righteousness. The apostle Peter wrote: “In accord with the Holy One who called you, do you also become holy yourselves in all your conduct, because it is written: ‘You must be holy, because I am holy.’” (1 Pet. 1:14-16) Jehovah loves his people and wants to protect the purity of the Christian congregation. So he outlined a provision to reject or expel a person who persists in a course that dishonors God and endangers the congregation.
5 The apostle Paul advised: “As for a man that promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition; knowing that such a man has been turned out of the way and is sinning, he being self-condemned.” (Titus 3:10, 11) Yes, spiritual elders, such as Titus was, first try lovingly to help a wrongdoer. If he will not respond to their help and persists in a course of “sinning,” they have authority to convoke a committee of elders to “judge the members of [the] fellowship.” (1 Cor. 5:12, Today’s English Version) Love for God and for the purity of his people requires that those in the “fellowship,” the congregation, reject that man.
6 In the first century some of such wrongdoers arose. Hymenaeus and Alexander were of that sort, men who had “experienced shipwreck concerning their faith.” Paul said: “I have handed them over to Satan that they may be taught by discipline not to blaspheme.” (1 Tim. 1:19, 20) Expelling those two men was a severe chastisement, or discipline, a punishment that might teach them not to blaspheme the holy and living God. (Compare Luke 23:16, where the basic Greek word often rendered “discipline” is used.) It was proper that these blasphemers be turned over to the authority of Satan, cast into the darkness of the world under Satan’s influence.—2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 4:17-19; 1 John 5:19; compare Acts 26:18.
HOW TO TREAT EXPELLED ONES
7 Some questions, however, may arise about how we should treat a former member who has been expelled. Thankfully, God has provided in his Word answers and directions that we can be sure are perfect, righteous and just.—Jer. 17:10; Deut. 32:4.
8 At one point a man in the Corinthian congregation was practicing immorality and evidently was unrepentant. Paul wrote that this man ’should be taken away from their midst,’ for he was like a little leaven that could ferment, or corrupt, a whole mass. (1 Cor. 5:1, 2, 6) But, was he, when once expelled, to be treated as if he were just an average person of the world whom the Christians might meet in their neighborhood or daily life? Note what Paul said.
9 “I wrote you to quit mixing in company with fornicators, not meaning entirely with the fornicators of this world or the greedy persons and extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world.” (1 Cor. 5:9, 10) In these words Paul realistically acknowledged that most persons whom we contact in our daily affairs have never known or followed God’s way. They may be fornicators, extortioners or idolaters, so they are not persons whom Christians choose as regular, close associates. Still, we live on this planet among mankind and may have to be around such persons and speak to them on the job, at school, in the neighborhood.
10 In the next verse Paul contrasts this situation with how Christians should conduct themselves toward one who had been a Christian “brother” but who was expelled from the congregation because of wrongdoing: “But now I am writing you to quit mixing in company ["not associate," TEV] with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.”—1 Cor. 5:11.
11 The expelled person is not a mere man of the world who has not known God nor pursued a godly way of life. Rather, he has known the way of truth and righteousness, but he has left that way and unrepentantly pursued sin to the point of having to be expelled. So he is to be treated differently. Peter commented on how such former Christians differ from an average “man on the street.” The apostle said: “If, after having escaped from the defilements of the world by an accurate knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they get involved again with these very things and are overcome, the final conditions have become worse for them than the first. . . . The saying of the true proverb has happened to them: ‘The dog has returned to his vomit, and the sow that was bathed to rolling in the mire.’”—2 Pet. 2:20-22; 1 Cor. 6:11.
12 Yes, the Bible commands Christians not to keep company or fellowship with a person who has been expelled from the congregation. Thus “disfellowshiping” is what Jehovah’s Witnesses appropriately call the expelling and subsequent shunning of such an unrepentant wrongdoer. Their refusal to fellowship with an expelled person on any spiritual or social level reflects loyalty to God’s standards and obedience to his command at 1 Corinthians 5:11, 13. This is consistent with Jesus’ advice that such a person be considered in the same way as “a man of the nations” was viewed by the Jews of that time. For some time after the apostles died, those professing Christianity evidently followed the Biblical procedure. But how many churches today comply with God’s clear directions in this regard?
THOSE WHO DISASSOCIATE THEMSELVES
13 A Christian might grow spiritually weak, perhaps because of not studying God’s Word regularly, having personal problems or experiencing persecution. (1 Cor. 11:30; Rom. 14:1) Such a one might cease to attend Christian meetings. What is to be done? Recall that the apostles abandoned Jesus on the night of his arrest. Yet Christ had urged Peter, “When once you have returned, strengthen your brothers [who also abandoned Jesus].” (Luke 22:32) Hence, out of love Christian elders and others might visit and help the one who has grown weak and inactive. (1 Thess. 5:14; Rom. 15:1; Heb. 12:12, 13) It is another matter, though, when a person repudiates his being a Christian and disassociates himself.
14 One who has been a true Christian might renounce the way of the truth, stating that he no longer considers himself to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses or wants to be known as one. When this rare event occurs, the person is renouncing his standing as a Christian, deliberately disassociating himself from the congregation. The apostle John wrote: “They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us.”—1 John 2:19.
15 Or, a person might renounce his place in the Christian congregation by his actions, such as by becoming part of an organization whose objective is contrary to the Bible, and, hence, is under judgment by Jehovah God. (Compare Revelation 19:17-21; Isaiah 2:4.) So if one who was a Christian chose to join those who are disapproved of God, it would be fitting for the congregation to acknowledge by a brief announcement that he had disassociated himself and is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
16 Persons who make themselves “not of our sort” by deliberately rejecting the faith and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses should appropriately be viewed and treated as are those who have been disfellowshiped for wrongdoing.
COOPERATING WITH THE CONGREGATION
17 Though Christians enjoy spiritual fellowship when they discuss or study the Bible with their brothers or interested persons, they would not want to have such fellowship with an expelled sinner (or one who has renounced the faith and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, disassociating himself). The expelled person has been ‘rejected,’ being “self-condemned” because of “sinning,” and those in the congregation both accept God’s judgment and uphold it. Disfellowshiping, however, implies more than ceasing to have spiritual fellowship.—Titus 3:10, 11.
18 Paul wrote: “Quit mixing in company . . . , not even eating with such a man.” (1 Cor. 5:11) A meal is a time of relaxation and socializing. Hence, the Bible here rules out social fellowship, too, such as joining an expelled person in a picnic or party, ball game, trip to the beach or theater, or sitting down to a meal with him. (The special problems involving a relative who has been disfellowshiped are considered in the following article.)
19 Sometimes a Christian might feel under considerable pressure to ignore this Bible advice. His own emotions may create the pressure, or it may be brought to bear on him by acquaintances. For instance, one brother was pressured to officiate at the marriage of two disfellowshiped persons. Could that service be rationalized as a mere kindness? One could feel that way. But why were his services wanted, rather than those of the town mayor or other state marrying agent? Was it not because of his standing as a minister of God and his ability to offer marriage counsel from God’s Word? To give in to such pressure would involve him in fellowshiping with the couple, persons who had been expelled from the congregation for their ungodly way.—1 Cor. 5:13.
20 Other problems arise in connection with business or employment. What if you were employed by a man who now was expelled by the congregation, or you employed a person to whom that happened? What then? If you were contractually or financially obliged to continue the business relationship for the present, you certainly would now have a different attitude toward the disfellowshiped individual. Discussion of business matters with him or contact on the job might be necessary, but spiritual discussions and social fellowship would be things of the past. In that way you could demonstrate your obedience to God and have a protective barrier for yourself. Also, this might impress on him how much his sin has cost him in various ways.—2 Cor. 6:14, 17.
SPEAK WITH A DISFELLOWSHIPED OR DISASSOCIATED PERSON?
21 Would upholding God’s righteousness and his disfellowshiping arrangement mean that a Christian should not speak at all with an expelled person, not even saying “Hello”? Some have wondered about that, in view of Jesus’ advice to love our enemies and not ‘greet our brothers only.’—Matt. 5:43-47.
22 Actually, in his wisdom God did not try to cover every possible situation. What we need is to get the sense of what Jehovah says about treatment of a disfellowshiped person, for then we can strive to uphold His view. Through the apostle John, God explains:
“Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. . . . If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.”—2 John 9-11.
23 The apostle who gave that wise warning was close to Jesus and knew well what Christ had said about greeting others. He also knew that the common greeting of that time was “Peace.” As distinct from some personal “enemy” or worldly man in authority who opposed Christians, a disfellowshiped or disassociated person who is trying to promote or justify his apostate thinking or is continuing in his ungodly conduct is certainly not one to whom to wish “Peace.” (1 Tim. 2:1, 2) And we all know from our experience over the years that a simple “Hello” to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?
24 ‘But what if he seems to be repentant and needs encouragement?’ someone might wonder. There is a provision for handling such situations. The overseers in the congregation serve as spiritual shepherds and protectors of the flock. (Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 5:2) If a disfellowshiped or disassociated person inquires, or gives evidence of wanting to come back into God’s favor, the elders can speak to him. They will kindly explain what he needs to do and might give him some appropriate admonition. They can deal with him on the basis of facts about his past sin and his attitude. Others in the congregation lack such information. So if someone felt that the disfellowshiped or disassociated person ‘is repentant,’ might that be a judgment based on impression rather than accurate information? If the overseers were convinced that the person was repentant and was producing the fruits of repentance, he would be reinstated into the congregation. After that occurs, the rest of the congregation can warmly welcome him at the meetings, display forgiveness, comfort him and confirm their love for him, as Paul urged the Corinthians to do with the man reinstated at Corinth.—2 Cor. 2:5-8.
NOT SHARING IN WICKED WORKS
25 All faithful Christians need to take to heart the serious truth that God inspired John to write: “He that says a greeting to [an expelled sinner who is promoting an erroneous teaching or carrying on ungodly conduct] is a sharer in his wicked works.”—2 John 11.
26 Many of Christendom’s commentators take exception to 2 John 11. They claim that it is ‘unchristian counsel, contrary to the spirit of our Lord,’ or that it encourages intolerance. Yet such sentiments emanate from religious organizations that do not apply God’s command to “remove the wicked man from among yourselves,” that seldom if ever expel even notorious wrongdoers from their churches. (1 Cor. 5:13) Their “tolerance” is unscriptural, unchristian.—Matt. 7:21-23; 25:24-30; John 8:44.
27 But it is not wrong to be loyal to the righteous and just God of the Bible. He tells us that he will accept ‘in his holy mountain’ only those who walk faultlessly, practice righteousness and speak truth. (Ps. 15:1-5) If, though, a Christian were to throw in his lot with a wrongdoer who has been rejected by God and disfellowshiped, or has disassociated himself, that would be as much as saying ‘I do not want a place in God’s holy mountain either.’ If the elders saw him heading in that direction by regularly keeping company with a disfellowshiped person, they would lovingly and patiently try to help him to regain God’s view. (Matt. 18:18; Gal. 6:1) They would admonish him and, if necessary, ‘reprove him with severity.’ They want to help him remain ‘in God’s holy mountain.’ But if he will not cease to fellowship with the expelled person, he thus has made himself ‘a sharer (supporting or participating) in the wicked works’ and must be removed from the congregation, expelled.—Titus 1:13; Jude 22, 23; compare Numbers 16:26.
LOYAL TO GOD’S VIEW
28 Loyalty to Jehovah God and his provisions is a source of happiness, for all his ways are righteous, just and good. This is true, too, concerning his provision to disfellowship unrepentant wrongdoers. As we cooperate with that arrangement, we can trust in David’s words: “Take knowledge that Jehovah will certainly distinguish his loyal one.” (Ps. 4:3) Yes, God sets apart, honors and guides those who are loyal to him and his ways. Among the many blessings we receive from such loyalty is the joy of being among those whom God approves and accepts ‘in his holy mountain.’—Ps. 84:10, 11.
DO YOU RECALL THESE POINTS?
When Jews were expelled from the synagogue, how were they treated?
Paul showed what difference in treating
(1) immoral persons in the world?
(2) immoral persons disfellowshiped from the congregation?
How should Christians view a person who disassociates himself from the congregation?
“Disfellowshiping” implies the terminating of what kinds of fellowship?
Why do Christians not greet or speak with disfellowshiped persons?
With regard to disfellowshiping, what do we need to do to remain ‘in God’s holy mountain’?
[Footnotes]
“Henceforth he was like one dead. He was not allowed to study with others, no [social] intercourse was to be held with him, he was not even to be shown the road. He might, indeed, buy the necessaries of life, but it was forbidden to eat or drink with such an one.”—The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, by A. Edersheim, Vol. II, p. 184.
In line with this Bible teaching, Adam Clarke highlights the difference, stating: “Have no communion with [an expelled sinner] in things sacred or civil. You may transact your worldly concerns with a person that knows not God, and makes no profession of Christianity, whatever his moral character may be; but, ye must not even thus far acknowledge a man professing Christianity, who is scandalous in his conduct. Let him have this extra mark of your abhorrence of all sin.”
Ecclesiastical historian Joseph Bingham writes concerning the early centuries: “The discipline of the church consisted in a power to deprive men of all the benefits and privileges of baptism, by turning them out of the society and communion of the church, . . . and every one shunned and avoided them in common conversation, partly to establish the church’s censures and proceedings against them, and partly to make them ashamed, and partly to secure themselves from the danger of contagion.” ” . . . no one was to receive excommunicated persons into their houses, nor eat at the same table with them; they were not to converse with them familiarly, whilst living; nor perform the funeral obsequies for them, when dead, . . . These directions were drawn up upon the model of those rules of the apostles, which forbade Christians to give any countenance to notorious offenders.”—The Antiquities of the Christian Church, pp. 880, 891.
Our issue of September 1, 1981, discussed 2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15, where the Bible says that it might be necessary to ‘mark’ a Christian who persists in disorderly conduct. He is still a brother and to be admonished as such, but other Christians are to “stop associating with him.” If they should avoid his company on a social basis, much clearer separation should exist in the cases of disfellowshiped or disassociated wrongdoers.
For a discussion of repentance, see The Watchtower of September 1, 1981.
[Study Questions]
1, 2. How do we know that God expects his worshipers to uphold his standards?
3. What was the situation of a Jew expelled from the synagogue?
4, 5. How was the Christian congregation to deal with an unrepentant sinner?
6. Why was it right and proper to expel unrepentant sinners?
7, 8. How can we determine what our conduct should be toward an expelled one?
9. What was Paul’s counsel about dealing with unrighteous persons in general?
10, 11. Why are Christians to act differently toward a sinner who has been expelled?
12. (a) Why is “disfellowshiping” an appropriate term? (b) What does history show as to how those professing Christianity dealt with sinners in early times?
13. What should be done in the case of a person who becomes weak and inactive?
14. How might a person disassociate himself?
15, 16. (a) How else might a person become disassociated? (b) How should Christians view and deal with disassociated persons?
17, 18. What is involved in our cooperating with the congregation as to disfellowshiping?
19. Why may it sometimes seem difficult to uphold a disfellowshiping, but why is it important that we do?
20. What should be our reaction if a business associate is disfellowshiped?
21, 22. The Scriptures provide what advice about speaking with a disfellowshiped person?
23, 24. Why is it wise to avoid speaking to expelled individuals?
25, 26. What does God counsel about becoming a “sharer” with a disfellowshiped person?
27. How might a Christian become such a “sharer,” and with what result?
28. How can we manifest our loyalty to Jehovah’s view?
[Pictures on page 22]
“Not even eating with” a disfellowshiped person
[Emphasis Added]
*** Watchtower Apr 1, 1986 p.30-31 Questions From Readers ***
Questions From Readers
• Why have Jehovah’s Witnesses disfellowshipped (excommunicated) for apostasy some who still profess belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ?
Those who voice such an objection point out that many religious organizations claiming to be Christian allow dissident views. Even some clergymen disagree with basic teachings of their church, yet they remain in good standing. In nearly all the denominations of Christendom, there are modernists and fundamentalists who greatly disagree with one another as to the inspiration of the Scriptures.
However, such examples provide no grounds for our doing the same. Why not? Many of such denominations allow widely divergent views among the clergy and the laity because they feel they cannot be certain as to just what is Bible truth. They are like the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day who were unable to speak as persons having authority, which is how Jesus taught. (Matthew 7:29) Moreover, to the extent that religionists believe in interfaith, they are obligated not to take divergent beliefs too seriously.
But taking such a view of matters has no basis in the Scriptures. Jesus did not make common cause with any of the sects of Judaism. Jews of those sects professed to believe in the God of creation and in the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly the Law of Moses. Still, Jesus told his disciples to “watch out . . . for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” (Matthew 16:11, 12; 23:15) Note also how strongly the apostle Paul stated matters: “Even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond what we declared to you as good news, let him be accursed.” Paul then repeated that statement for emphasis.—Galatians 1:8, 9.
Teaching dissident or divergent views is not compatible with true Christianity, as Paul makes clear at 1 Corinthians 1:10: “I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.” (New International Version) At Ephesians 4:3-6 he further stated that Christians should be “earnestly endeavoring to observe the oneness of the spirit in the uniting bond of peace. One body there is, and one spirit, even as you were called in the one hope to which you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all persons.”
Was this unity to be achieved and maintained by each one’s independently searching the Scriptures, coming to his own conclusions, and then teaching these? Not at all! Through Jesus Christ, Jehovah God provided for this purpose “some as apostles, . . . some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers . . . until we all attain to the oneness in the faith and in the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man.” Yes, with the help of such ministers, congregational unity-oneness in teaching and activity-could be and would be possible.—Ephesians 4:11-13.
Obviously, a basis for approved fellowship with Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot rest merely on a belief in God, in the Bible, in Jesus Christ, and so forth. The Roman Catholic pope, as well as the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, professes such beliefs, yet their church memberships are exclusive of each other. Likewise, simply professing to have such beliefs would not authorize one to be known as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. What do such beliefs include?
That the great issue before humankind is the rightfulness of Jehovah’s sovereignty, which is why he has allowed wickedness so long. (Ezekiel 25:17) That Jesus Christ had a prehuman existence and is subordinate to his heavenly Father. (John 14:2
Do we have Scriptural precedent for taking such a strict position? Indeed we do! Paul wrote about some in his day: “Their word will spread like gangrene. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of that number. These very men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and they are subverting the faith of some.” (2 Timothy 2:17, 18; see also Matthew 18:6.) There is nothing to indicate that these men did not believe in God, in the Bible, in Jesus’ sacrifice. Yet, on this one basic point, what they were teaching as to the time of the resurrection, Paul rightly branded them as apostates, with whom faithful Christians would not fellowship.
Similarly, the apostle John termed as antichrists those who did not believe that Jesus had come in the flesh. They may well have believed in God, in the Hebrew Scriptures, in Jesus as God’s Son, and so on. But on this point, that Jesus had actually come in the flesh, they disagreed and thus were termed “antichrist.” John goes on to say regarding those holding such variant views: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.”—2 John 7, 10, 11.
Following such Scriptural patterns, if a Christian (who claims belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus) unrepentantly promotes false teachings, it may be necessary for him to be expelled from the congregation. (See Titus 3:10, 11.) Of course, if a person just has doubts or is uninformed on a point, qualified ministers will lovingly assist him. This accords with the counsel: “Continue showing mercy to some that have doubts; save them by snatching them out of the fire.” (Jude 22, 23) Hence, the true Christian congregation cannot rightly be accused of being harshly dogmatic, but it does highly value and work toward the unity encouraged in God’s Word.
[Emphasis Added]
*** Watchtower 1988 April 15 pp.26-31 Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit ***
[Also available at Watchtower official website]
Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit
“No discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but grievous; yet afterward to those who have been trained by it it yields peaceable fruit, namely, righteousness.”—HEBREWS 12:11.
THINK back to your childhood days. Can you recall your parents disciplining you? Most of us can. The apostle Paul used that as an illustration when commenting on discipline from God, as we read at Hebrews 12:9-11.
2 God’s fatherly discipline, which can affect our spiritual lives, can take many forms. One is his arrangement to exclude from the Christian congregation a person who no longer wants to live by God’s standards, or who refuses to do so. A person who is thus strongly chastised or disciplined may repent and turn around. In the process, the congregation of loyal ones are also disciplined in that they learn the importance of conforming to God’s high standards.—1 Timothy 1:20.
3 ‘But,’ someone may ask, ‘is it not harsh to expel and then refuse to talk with the expelled person?’ Such a view surfaced in a recent court case involving a woman who was raised by parents who were Jehovah’s Witnesses. Her parents had been disfellowshipped. She was not, but she voluntarily disassociated herself by writing a letter withdrawing from the congregation. Accordingly, the congregation was simply informed that she was no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. She moved away, but years later she returned and found that local Witnesses would not converse with her. So she took the matter to court. What was the outcome, and how might this affect you? In order to understand the matter properly, let us see what the Bible says about the related subject of disfellowshipping.
Why This Firm Stand?
4 Most true Christians loyally support God and his righteous laws. (1 Thessalonians 1:2-7; Hebrews 6:10) Occasionally, though, a person deviates from the path of truth. For example, despite help from Christian elders, he may unrepentantly violate God’s laws. Or he may reject the faith by teaching false doctrine or by disassociating himself from the congregation. Then what should be done? Such things occurred even while the apostles were alive; hence, let us see what they wrote about this.
5 When a man in Corinth was unrepentantly immoral, Paul told the congregation: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.” (1 Corinthians 5:11-13) The same was to occur with apostates, such as Hymenaeus: “As for a man that promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition; knowing that such a man has been turned out of the way and is sinning.” (Titus 3:10, 11; 1 Timothy 1:19, 20) Such shunning would be appropriate, too, for anyone who rejects the congregation: “They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us. But they went out that it might be shown up that not all are of our sort.”—1 John 2:18, 19.
6 Hopefully, such a one will repent so that he can be accepted back. (Acts 3:19) But meanwhile, may Christians have limited fellowship with him, or is strict avoidance necessary? If so, why?
Cut Off Thoroughly?
7 Christians do not hold themselves aloof from people. We have normal contacts with neighbors, workmates, schoolmates, and others, and witness to them even if some are ‘fornicators, greedy persons, extortioners, or idolaters.’ Paul wrote that we cannot avoid them completely, ‘otherwise we would have to get out of the world.’ He directed that it was to be different, though, with “a brother” who lived like that: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that [has returned to such ways], not even eating with such a man.”—1 Corinthians 5:9-11; Mark 2:13-17.
8 In the apostle John’s writings, we find similar counsel that emphasizes how thoroughly Christians are to avoid such ones: “Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God . . . If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting [Greek, khai'ro] to him is a sharer in his wicked works.”—2 John 9-11.
9 Why is such a firm stand appropriate even today? Well, reflect on the severe cutting off mandated in God’s Law to Israel. In various serious matters, willful violators were executed. (Leviticus 20:10; Numbers 15:30, 31) When that happened, others, even relatives, could no longer speak with the dead lawbreaker. (Leviticus 19:1-4; Deuteronomy 13:1-5; 17:1-7) Though loyal Israelites back then were normal humans with emotions like ours, they knew that God is just and loving and that his Law protected their moral and spiritual cleanness. So they could accept that his arrangement to cut off wrongdoers was fundamentally a good and right thing.—Job 34:10-12.
10 We can be just as sure that God’s arrangement that Christians refuse to fellowship with someone who has been expelled for unrepentant sin is a wise protection for us. “Clear away the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, according as you are free from ferment.” (1 Corinthians 5:7) By also avoiding persons who have deliberately disassociated themselves, Christians are protected from possible critical, unappreciative, or even apostate views.—Hebrews 12:15, 16.
What About Relatives?
11 God certainly realizes that carrying out his righteous laws about cutting off wrongdoers often involves and affects relatives. As mentioned above, when an Israelite wrongdoer was executed, no more family association was possible. In fact, if a son was a drunkard and a glutton, his parents were to bring him before the judges, and if he was unrepentant, the parents were to share in the just executing of him, ‘to clear away what is bad from the midst of Israel.’ (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) You can appreciate that this would not have been easy for them. Imagine, too, how the wrongdoer’s brothers, sisters, or grandparents felt. Yet, their putting loyalty to their righteous God before family affection could be lifesaving for them.
12 Recall the case of Korah, a leader in rebellion against God’s leadership through Moses. In his perfect justice, Jehovah saw that Korah had to die. But all loyal ones were advised: “Turn aside, please, from before the tents of these wicked men and do not touch anything that belongs to them, that you may not be swept away in all their sin.” Relatives who would not accept God’s warning died with the rebels. But some of Korah’s relatives wisely chose to be loyal to Jehovah, which saved their lives and led to future blessings.—Numbers 16:16-33; 26:9-11; 2 Chronicles 20:19.
13 Cutting off from the Christian congregation does not involve immediate death, so family ties continue. Thus, a man who is disfellowshipped or who disassociates himself may still live at home with his Christian wife and faithful children. Respect for God’s judgments and the congregation’s action will move the wife and children to recognize that by his course, he altered the spiritual bond that existed between them. Yet, since his being disfellowshipped does not end their blood ties or marriage relationship, normal family affections and dealings can continue.
14 The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum, in line with the divine principle: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person [or guilty of another gross sin], . . . not even eating with such a man.”—1 Corinthians 5:11.
15 Understandably, this may be difficult because of emotions and family ties, such as grandparents’ love for their grandchildren. Yet, this is a test of loyalty to God, as stated by the sister quoted on page 26. Anyone who is feeling the sadness and pain that the disfellowshipped relative has thus caused may find comfort and be encouraged by the example set by some of Korah’s relatives.—Psalm 84:10-12.
The Court Decision
16 You may want to know the outcome of the court case involving a woman who was upset because former acquaintances would not converse with her after she chose to reject the faith, disassociating herself from the congregation.
17 Before the case went to trial, a federal district court summarily granted judgment against her. That judgment was based on the concept that courts do not get involved in church disciplinary matters. She then appealed. The unanimous judgment of the federal court of appeals was based on broader grounds of First Amendment (of the U.S. Constitution) rights: “Because the practice of shunning is a part of the faith of the Jehovah’s Witness, we find that the ‘free exercise’ provision of the United States Constitution . . . precludes [her] from prevailing. The defendants have a constitutionally protected privilege to engage in the practice of shunning. Accordingly, we affirm” the earlier judgment of the district court.
18 The court opinion continued: “Shunning is a practice engaged in by Jehovah’s Witnesses pursuant to their interpretation of canonical text, and we are not free to reinterpret that text . . . The defendants are entitled to the free exercise of their religious beliefs . . . Courts generally do not scrutinize closely the relationship among members (or former members) of a church. Churches are afforded great latitude when they impose discipline on members or former members. We agree with [former U.S. Supreme Court] Justice Jackson’s view that ‘[r]eligious activities which concern only members of the faith are and ought to be free-as nearly absolutely free as anything can be.’ . . . The members of the Church [she] decided to abandon have concluded that they no longer want to associate with her. We hold that they are free to make that choice.”
19 The court of appeals acknowledged that even if the woman felt distress because former acquaintances chose not to converse with her, “permitting her to recover for intangible or emotional injuries would unconstitutionally restrict the Jehovah’s Witnesses free exercise of religion . . . The constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion requires that society tolerate the type of harms suffered by [her] as a price well worth paying to safeguard the right of religious difference that all citizens enjoy.” This decision has, in a sense, received even more weight since it was handed down. How so? The woman later petitioned the highest court in the land to hear the case and possibly overturn the decision against her. But in November 1987, the United States Supreme Court refused to do so.
20 Hence, this important case determined that a disfellowshipped or disassociated person cannot recover damages from Jehovah’s Witnesses in a court of law for being shunned. Since the congregation was responding to the perfect directions that all of us can read in God’s Word and applying it, the person is feeling a loss brought on by his or her own actions.
Discipline—Many Benefit
21 Some outsiders, upon hearing about disfellowshipping, are inclined to sympathize with a wrongdoer who can no longer converse with members of the Christian congregation. But is not such sympathy misplaced? Consider the potential benefit that the wrongdoer and others may receive.
22 For example, on page 26 we noted Lynette’s comment about her choice ‘to cut herself off completely from all association’ with her disfellowshipped sister Margaret. She and her Christian relatives ‘believed that Jehovah’s way is best.’ And it is!
23 Lynette’s sister later told her: ‘If you had viewed the disfellowshipping lightly, I know that I would not have taken steps toward reinstatement as soon as I did. Being totally cut off from loved ones and from close contact with the congregation created a strong desire to repent. I realized just how wrong my course was and how serious it was to turn my back on Jehovah.’
24 In another case, Laurie’s parents were disfellowshipped. Yet she says: ‘My association with them never stopped but increased. As time went on, I became more and more inactive. I got to the point of not even attending meetings.’ Then she read material in The Watchtower of September 1 and 15, 1981, that stressed the counsel of 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 and 2 John 9-11. “It was as if a light bulb were turned on in me,” she writes. ‘I knew I would have to make some changes. I now better understand the meaning of Matthew 10:34-36. My decision was not an easy one for my family to swallow, for my son, five, is the only boy, and they love him dearly.’ It is hoped that losing such association will touch the parents’ hearts, as it did Margaret’s. Still, the discipline involved helped Laurie: ‘I am back out in the field ministry. My marriage and family are stronger because of my change, and so am I.’
25 Or consider the feelings of one who was disfellowshipped and later reinstated. Sandi wrote: ‘I would like to thank you for the very helpful and instructive articles [mentioned above] on reproof and disfellowshipping. I am happy that Jehovah loves his people enough to see that his organization is kept clean. What may seem harsh to outsiders is both necessary and really a loving thing to do. I am grateful that our heavenly Father is a loving and forgiving God.’
26 So our God who requires that an unrepentant wrongdoer be expelled from the congregation also lovingly shows that a sinner can be reinstated in the congregation if he repents and turns around. (A disassociated person can similarly request to become part of the congregation again.) Thereafter he can be comforted by Christians who will confirm their love for him. (2 Corinthians 2:5-11; 7:8-13) Truly, it is just as Paul wrote: “No discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but grievous; yet afterward to those who have been trained by it it yields peaceable fruit, namely, righteousness.”—Hebrews 12:11.
[Footnotes]
John here used khai’ro, which was a greeting like “good day” or “hello.” (Acts 15:23; Matthew 28:9) He did not use a·spa’zo·mai (as in 2Jo verse 13), which means “to enfold in the arms, thus to greet, to welcome” and may have implied a very warm greeting, even with an embrace. (Luke 10:4; 11:43; Acts 20:1, 37; 1 Thessalonians 5:26) So the direction at 2 John 11 could well mean not to say even “hello” to such ones.—See The Watchtower of July 15, 1985, page 31.
For a discussion of a relative’s being disfellowshipped, see The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, pages 26-31.
819 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1987).
Though various individuals have brought suit, no court has rendered a judgment against Jehovah’s Witnesses over their Bible-based practice of shunning.
Points to Remember
- In what ways can disfellowshipping be a form of discipline?
- Why does a Christian’s conduct toward disfellowshipped persons differ from his conduct toward sinners in the world?
- What Scriptural direction should be borne in mind even if a relative is disfellowshipped?
- An appeals court reached what conclusion in a case brought by a disassociated person?
- What can we learn from some personal expressions about disfellowshipping?
[Study Questions]
1, 2. (a) According to Hebrews 12:9-11, what does God lovingly provide? (b) What is one example of discipline, and what can result from this?
3. How do some react to the idea of disfellowshipping?
4. What occasionally occurs with some in the congregation? (Galatians 6:1; Jude 23)
5, 6. (a) We have what wise counsel as to dealing with those who commit serious sins and are unrepentant? (Matthew 18:17) (b) What questions do we face?
7. How would our conduct differ as to two classes of sinners?
8. What advice did the apostle John provide on shunning?
9, 10. (a) What happened to unrepentant lawbreakers in Israel, and why? (b) How should we feel about the arrangement today for dealing with persons expelled for unrepentant sin? (2 Peter 2:20-22)
11, 12. (a) What was the effect on Israelite relatives when a wrongdoer was cut off? (b) Illustrate the benefits of obedience.
13. How will loyal Christians respond if an immediate family member is disfellowshipped or he disassociates himself?
14. What divine advice should influence our contact with a disfellowshipped or disassociated relative outside our immediate family circle?
15. How can relatives control the influence of emotions in such instances? (Psalm 15:1-5; Mark 10:29, 30)
16-18. What decision was reached in the court case mentioned earlier, and what added opinion did the court offer?
19, 20. Why is a person who is cut off from the congregation not in position to recover monetary damages in court?
21. Why is balance needed in viewing disfellowshipping?
22, 23. Illustrate the importance and value of obeying God in our view of disfellowshipped persons.
24. How did one sister’s response to disfellowshipping affect her and others?
25. What view did a reinstated person have of God’s discipline?
26. What righteous fruit can result from accepting discipline? (Psalm 94:10, 12)
[Blurb on page 26]
“Cutting ourselves off completely from all association with [my disfellowshipped sister] Margaret tested our loyalty to Jehovah’s arrangement. It gave our family opportunity to show that we really believe that Jehovah’s way is best.”—Lynette.
[Box on page 30]
Excommunication—What Effect?
English historian Edward Gibbon wrote about the propriety and effect of disfellowshipping nearer the time of the apostles:
“It is the undoubted right of every society to exclude from its communion and benefits such among its members as reject or violate those regulations which have been established by general consent. . . . The consequences of excommunication were of a temporal [earthly] as well as a spiritual nature. The Christian against whom it was pronounced was deprived of any part in the oblations of the faithful. The ties both of religious and of private friendship were dissolved.”
[Emphasis Added]
*** Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock (1991), p.103 ***
[This book is available only to active elders]
Proper View of Disfellowshipped and Disassociated Persons
If an individual is trying to influence others to take an unscriptural course or is trying to deceive others, all should avoid him; he is described at 2. John 9-11.
Disfellowshipped and disassociated ones are shunned by those who wish to have a good relationship with Jehovah.
Basic Scriptural counsel on the proper view of those who have been expelled from the congregation is set out in the apostle Paul’s words at 1 Corinthians 5:11-13.
John counsels against speaking to or associating with a disfellowshipped or disassociated person so as not to be “a sharer in his wicked works.” (2 John 11 )
Scriptural and historical guidelines on how to view disfellowshipped and disassociated persons are found in The Watchtower, September 15, 1981, pages 20-31.
[Emphasis Added]
*** Watchtower 1998 December 1 p.17 Defending Our Faith ***
What About Slanderous Publicity?
15 At times, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been the target of distorted information in the media. For example, on August 1, 1997, a Russian newspaper published a slanderous article claiming, among other things, that Witnesses categorically require members to ‘reject their wives, husbands, and parents if these do not understand and do not share their faith.’ Anyone who is truly acquainted with Jehovah’s Witnesses knows that the charge is false. The Bible indicates that Christians are to treat unbelieving family members with love and respect, and Witnesses endeavor to follow that direction. (1 Corinthians 7:12-16; 1 Peter 3:1-4) Even so, the article was printed, and many readers were thus misinformed. How can we defend our faith when we are falsely accused?
C.T. Russell’s burial and site
Rosemont United Cemetery
Charles T. Russell Gravesite
Russell’s Instructions for his funeral
I desire to be buried in the plot of ground owned by our Society, in the Rosemont United Cemetery, and all the details of arrangements respecting the funeral service I leave in the care of my sister, Mrs. M. M. Land, and her daughters, Alice and May, or such of them as may survive me, with the assistance and advice and cooperation of the brethren, as they may request the same. Instead of an ordinary funeral discourse, I request that they arrange to have a number of the brethren, accustomed to public speaking, make a few remarks each, that the service be very simple and inexpensive and that it be conducted in the Bible House Chapel or any other place that may be considered equally appropriate or more so. (from Watchtower Reprints, 12/1/16)
for those wishing to visit the gravesite:
The area is the North Hills area of Pittsburgh. It is in the “Rosemont United Cemeteries at Allegheny, in the Bethel Family plot, according to his request.” (Jehovah’s Witnesses In The Divine Purpose, 1959, p. 62)
The street is named Cemetery Lane. It is where BABCOCK BLVD and MCKNIGHT RD intersect. McNight Rd is a large freeway. There is a Babcock Blvd exit off of McKnight Road. Go West on Babcock Blvd. Cemetery Lane will be a left turn off of Babcock. The pyramid is BEFORE you get to the top of the hill on the right side. You can see it from the road. It is maybe 30 to 40 feet into the cemetery. Or, simpler directions for others: Take Interstate 179 to Exit 12, which is Cemetery Lane. Follow Cemetery Lane to the gravesite.
United Cemeteries
226 Cemetery Ln.
Pittsburgh, PA 15237-2722
Tel (412) 931-1017You can also see that a nearby road is called MASONIC WAY
Charles Taze RUSSELL, first president of the Watchtower Society, died on Halloween, 1916.
Five miles north of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania he rests, in Rosemont United Cemeteries, on a burial plot that was intended for the use of members of the Watchtower Society’s Headquarters staff - the “Bethel family.” The plot is not small; it is spacious enough to allow for about 275 adult graves, and in the exact center of this space we can find today a very curious thing: a pyramid.
We are told in the “Souvenir Report of the Bible Students Convention, Pittsburgh, PA.(1919),” that the pyramid was “accepted by Brother Russell as the most fitting emblem for an enduring monument on the Societys burial space.” It weighs several tons, is nine feet at the base and seven feet high, and rests on a reinforced concrete pad five feet thick.On each face of the pyramid we find the same design: near the apex a laurel wreath encircles a crown which itself encircles a cross. Beneath this is a text box which bears a different message on each of the four sides - “WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY,” “DEAD WITH CHRIST,” “I. B. S. A.,” AND “RISEN WITH CHRIST”. “IBSA” stands for International Bible Students Association. Beneath the text box we find the largest feature of each face, “cut in four-inch embossment a Teachers Bible, on the pages of which will appear the names of the ones buried there. The burial space for Brother Rutherford was indicated and his name, like that of Brother Russell, will be at the top of opposite Bible pages. A Bible space is being set apart for the Pilgrims all in one lot of forty eight grave space[s], so all their names will appear on the same Bible.” - “Souvenir Report…”
The pyramid is partially hollow, and when set in place it contained a sealed metal box in which, according to the “Souvenir Report…” “is a complete set of Karatol Scripture Studies, the Memorial Tower, and one of every tract, photographs of Pastor Russell, a copy of the Societys charter, and many other things to interest the people who at some future date may open the pyramid and find them.” It is rumored that the pyramid was opened in 1994 or 1995 and was found to be empty.
Some have mistakenly claimed that Charles Taze Russell lies beneath this pyramid, but they are wrong: the pyramid is only an emblem and a monument.
Russell’s headstone is nearby, bearing the inscription, “PASTOR RUSSELL Charles T. Russell February 16, 1852 October 31, 1916 THE LAODICIAN MINISTER.” The “Laodician Minister” is a reference to Revelation 3:14 and is a reminder that Russell viewed himself to be the seventh of God’s messengers to the Church, the previus six being the apostle Paul, John (who wrote Reveleations), Arius of Alexandria, Waldo (of the Waldensian movement), John Wycliffe, and Martin Luther.
It is interesting that NONE of the “teachings” embodied in these two “stone witnesses” are currently held to be true by the followers of The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society - Jehovah’s Witnesses. Also interesting is that, although in 1919, Rutherford had evidently planned to be buried near this enduring monument in Pennsylvania, his actual resting place is either an unmarked grave in San Diego, California or a WTS burial plot on Staten Island in New York City.
Many Jehovah’s Witnesses may be surprised to know that the founder of their movement, Charles Taze Russell, was fascinated with Egyptian symbolism. This is often reflected in his life and writings. Even in his death, he had a huge pyramid structure dedicated to him, which can still be seen to this very day (see: Charles T. Russell Pyramid Tombstone Gravesite, Rosemont United Cemetery for further documentation, maps, and photographs). This tombstone was a fitting symbol for Russell reflecting his interest with the Great Pyramid of Gizeh.
During his life, Russell was so fascinated by the Great Pyramid of Gizeh that he looked to it for collaboration for his prophecies. He did this by using a system of measurments:
“In the passages of the Great Pyramid of Gizeh the agreement of one or two measurements with the present-truth chronology might seem accidental, but the correspondency of dozens of measurements proves that the same God designed both pyramid and plan…” (Watchtower 1922 June 15 p.187. This reference is not available on 1993/1995/1999 Watchtower CD-Rom)
In his Studies in the Scriptures series of books he wrote:
“So, then, if we measure backward down the “First Ascending Passage” to its junction with the “Entrance Passage,” we shall have a fixed date to mark upon the downward passage. This measure is 1542 inches, and indicates the year BC 1542, as the date at that point. Then measuring down the “Entrance Passage” from that point, to find the distance to the entrance of the “Pit,” representing the great trouble and destruction with which this age is to close, when evil will be overthrown from power, we find it to be 3416 inches, symbolizing 3416 years from the above date, BC 1542. This calculation shows AD. 1874 as marking the beginning of the period of trouble; for 1542 years BC plus 1874 years AD. equals 3416 years. Thus the Pyramid witnesses that the close of 1874 was the chronological beginning of the time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation — no, nor ever shall be afterward. And thus it will be noted that this “Witness” fully corroborates the Bible testimony on this subject…” (Charles Taze Russell, Thy Kingdom Come, Studies In The Scriptures, vol. 3, 1904 edition).
In the 1910 version of the same book, Russell changed his dating from 1874 to 1914, a date that Jehovah‘s Witnesses still hold to as relevant to this very day:
M. James Penton On the WTBTS involvement with Hitler
Milton G. Henschel, President
Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society
25 Columbia Heights
Brooklyn, New York
U.S.A. 11201
AN OPEN LETTER
Dear Mr. Henschel:
Yesterday I obtained a copy of the August 22 Awake! magazine with its articles on “The Holocaust: Who Spoke Out?”. On reading the articles in that issue of Awake!, I was thoroughly shocked and disgusted.
The Watch Tower Society has long attempted a cover-up of the most dishonest sort. While your organization properly censures other religious communities for their compromises with and support of Nazism, it tries to claim that Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Jehovah’s Witnesses alone, never were guilty of such compromise. Yet history tells a different story. The “Erklärung” or “Declaration” published by the Watch Tower Society at the Berlin Convention of Jehovah’s Witnesses in June 1933 is, in itself, clear evidence that the Society’s president, Judge J. F. Rutherford, as accompanied by N. H. Knorr, manifested anti-Semitism, hostility to Great Britain and the United States, and to the League of Nations. Furthermore, the “Erklärung” clearly states that Jehovah’s Witnesses supported the aims of the Third Reich.
In addition to the “Erklärung”, there is the evidence of the Society’s letter to Hitler sent on or immediately following June 25, 1933, and the public statements made about the Berlin convention by Konrad Franke in lectures throughout Germany some years ago. All of this I have made public in my book Apocalypse Delayed (1985)-which I know has been read at Watch Tower headquarters both from court documents and inside reports-and in the spring 1990 issue of The Christian Quest. So it is impossible for responsible members of your organization not to know the facts. Thus the August 22 Awake! is nothing short of an historical abomination.
I am aware of the feeble attempt of the 1974 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses to exculpate Judge Rutherford and the Watch Tower Society in Brooklyn by claiming that the Society’s German branch overseer, Paul Balzereit, “weakened” the “Erklärung”. But the “Erklärung” or “Declaration” was published in both the German and English versions of the 1934 Year Book of Jehovah’s Witnesses as an official statement of the Watch Tower Society. So it is impossible to believe that it was not sanctioned by Rutherford and the man who succeeded him as the Society’s president, N. H. Knorr. Therefore, the leadership of Jehovah’s Witnesses of that time attempted to commit what amounted to spiritual whoredom with the Third Reich in the fashion of the two sisters, Oholah and Oholibah of Ezekiel 23, according to the Society’s own teachings.
Although I do not expect an answer from you, nor do I want one, to make certain that you, personally, are aware of the facts, I am sending you the following materials:
(1) A photocopy of the original “Erklärung”
(2) A photocopy of the “Erklärung” as it appeared in the German edition of the 1934 Year Book of Jehovah’s Witnesses;
(3) A photocopy of the “Declaration” as it appears in the English edition of the 1934 Year Book of Jehovah’s Witnesses;
(4) A photocopy of the Hitler letter, plus an English translation thereof;
(5) A copy of the Spring 1990 issue of The Christian Quest.
Since I am well aware that the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, of which you are a senior member, is carrying on what amounts to a “Big Lie” campaign (1) to make Jehovah’s Witnesses appear to be God’s faithful and discreet slave class on earth and (2) to discredit other religions, as a former Jehovah’s Witness, a professional historian, and as a Christian who
believes that God has no need of our lies, I feel forced to expose the facts to the general public. Hence, I am sending copies of this letter, plus the above listed documentation, to both religious and secular publications throughout the United States and Canada. I will, of course, also make them available to persons in other lands so that they may be made known wherever possible.
In closing, Mr. Henschel, I would beg the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, who carry heavy responsibility before God and humankind, to come clean and admit the facts. Hypocrisy and falsifying the historical record are serious sins, as I am sure you are aware.
Sincerely yours,
M. James Penton, PhD
Professor Emeritus
Since the Second World War, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society has taught Jehovah’s Witnesses that while the German churches, both Catholic and Protestant, were guilty of compromise with
Hitler and the Nazi Party, their German brethren, then commonly known as “
Earnest Bible Students,” stood solidly against the principles of the Third Reich. Because of the brave stand taken by most ordinary German Witnesses in the face of a terrible persecution that cost many of them their lives in Hitler’s concentration camps, they have rightly been praised by secular historians-a fact which the Watch Tower Society has used to buttress its assertions.
For example, The Watchtower magazine of October 1, 1984 (p. 8), reported the findings of
Christine E. King and
Michael Kater to the effect that the number of Witness imprisonments and deaths brought about by Nazi persecution had been greatly underestimated. Quoting Dr. King, it stated:
“`Theological principles were adhered to; Witnesses remained “neutral,” they were honest and completely trustworthy and as such, ironically, often found themselves employed as servants of the S.S.’”
What has not generally been known either by most Jehovah’s Witnesses or many independent scholars, however, is that while ordinary German Witnesses did generally maintain their integrity and commitment to their principles, their leaders–the Watch Tower’s second president,
Judge Joseph F. Rutherford, and the man who succeeded him in office in 1942,
Nathan H. Knorr, plus high German Watch Tower officials-did not.
Furthermore, Rutherford and his lieutenants tried to save the German arm of their movement by scapegoating the Jews and attacking Great Britain, the United States, and the League of Nations.
During the first half of their history, the Bible Student-Jehovah’s Witnesses were notable for their sympathy to the Jews. Even more than most late nineteenth- and twentieth-century American Protestant premillennialists, the Watch Tower’s first president,
Charles T. Russell, was a thoroughgoing supporter of Zionist causes. He refused to attempt the conversion of the Jews, believed in the Jewish resettlement of Palestine, and in 1910, led a New York Jewish audience in singing the Zionist anthem, Hatikva. [1] For more than a decade after Russell’s death in 1916, Judge Rutherford followed in his footsteps.
In 1925 he produced a small book entitled Restoration, based on a series of radio broadcasts he had given, and in 1926 he published a similar volume called Comfort for the Jews. In both, he proclaimed himself a friend of the Jewish people and asserted that Jewish migration to the ancient Holy Land was a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Identical Publisher’s Forewords to Restoration and Comfort for the Jews stated:
THE rebuilding of Palestine is claiming the attention of Jews throughout the earth. Some of the Gentile world powers are outwardly favoring the movement but manifestly for selfish reasons.
JUDGE RUTHERFORD, known throughout the world as a friend of the Hebrew people, is vigorously supporting the claim of the Jews to the Holy Land. He is opposed to proselytizing the Jews, holding that such is not only wrong but contrary to the Scriptures. His lectures to large audiences, which have been broadcast throughout the world, on “JEWS RETURNING TO PALESTINE”, have created an intense interest. There is a good demand for them in printed form. He has simplified these lectures and now presents them in book form. This volume will be of profound interest to Jews and Gentiles alike. It is the first unbiased presentation of the subject from the Scriptural viewpoint published.The Publishers send forth this volume confident that it will do much good.
In 1930 Rutherford produced a larger volume on the same theme called Life.But suddenly he repudiated his beliefs respecting the Jews. Life was withdrawn from circulation,[2] and in 1932 Rutherford proclaimed that “fleshly Israel” had no specific role to play in salvation history. He wrote:
The Jews were evicted from Palestine and `their house left unto them desolate’ because they rejected Christ Jesus, the beloved and anointed King of Jehovah. To this day the Jews have not repented of this wrongful act committed by their forefathers. Many of them have been returned to the land of Palestine, but they have been induced to go there because of selfishness and for sentimental reasons.
During the long period elapsing from the time of their expulsion to the present day the Jews have not “borne the shame of the heathen” for Jehovah’s sake, nor for the name of Christ. During all this period of time, and particularly during the World War, the true followers of Christ Jesus devoted to God, and to his kingdom, have been bearing the shame of the heathen and have been hated by all the nations for Christ’s sake and the sake of Jehovah’s name. (Matt. 24: 9: Mark 13: 13)
In contrast to this, during the World War the Jews received recognition of the heathen nations. In 1917 the Balfour Declaration, sponsored by the heathen governments of Satan’s organization, came forth, recognized the Jews, and bestowed upon them great favors. In this the seventh world power [the British Empire] took the lead. Now Big Business and other wings of Satan’s organization place the Jews alongside of and in the same category as the Gentiles. Heretofore even God’s people have overlooked the fact that the affairs of God’s kingdom with reference to the things of the earth are of far greater importance than the rehabilitation of that little strip of land on the eastern side of the Mediterranean sea. The Jews have received more attention at their hands than they have really deserved. Therefore this prophecy [of Isaiah] must have its chief fulfillment upon the true people of God’s kingdom which are now on earth.
[3]
Perhaps the judge was simply anxious to assert that Jehovah’s Witnesses were the “true Israel of God,” but it seems that he had other reasons for making such a dramatic doctrinal switch without any more detailed explanation. While he may formerly have proclaimed himself a pro-Zionist “friend of the Hebrew people” in the tradition of his predecessor, he occasionally manifested a streak of deep-seated anti-semitism.
For example, while giving a talk on biblical prophecies respecting the return of the Jews to Palestine at a Canadian Bible Student convention in Winnipeg, Manitoba, in the early 1920s, he interjected:
“I’m speaking of the Palestine Jew, not the hooked-nosed, stooped-shouldered little individual who stands on the street corner trying to gyp you out of every nickel you’ve got.”
[4]
But there were no doubt other factors in 1932 which impelled him to abandon the Bible Students’ long tradition of philo-Judaism besides simple personal bias. During the late 1920s and early 1930s anti-semitism was becoming rampant in the United States and Canada with the rise of a variety of movements both religious and political.[5] And with the start of the Depression in 1929, it began to appear possible that the violently anti-Jewish Nazis could come to power in Germany - something which happened on January 30, 1933. So it seems clear that Rutherford was anxious to dissociate the Witnesses from the Jewish community as definitively as possible. Yet these facts can in no way excuse what he and his aids were shortly to do during the first year of the Third Reich.
Early in April 1933 the Nazis moved against Jehovah’s Witnesses. Their branch headquarters at Magdeburg were seized, and their religious activities were temporarily stopped. But on April 28, German authorities returned the properties to the Watch Tower Society to their American owners, no doubt to keep from offending the United States. [6] However, Witness leaders and Jehovah’s Witnesses in general knew that they were not popular with the Nazis. So according to an official Witness account, Judge Rutherford and the German Witness community decided to take a bold stand against the Hitler dictatorship.
The book Jehovah’s Witnesses in The Divine Purpose, published by the Watch Tower Society in 1957, states:
Judge Rutherford had been watching the German situation closely and was well acquainted with its development as it affected the witness work. With this serious turn of events he lost no time in going to Germany, accompanied by N. H. Knorr, to see what could be done. On June 25…, a convention was called in Berlin. There a Declaration of Facts was presented to the 7,000 in attendance in protest against the Hitler government for their highhanded interference with the witness work of the Society, and was unanimously adopted. The declaration was mailed to every high officer of the government from the president down to the members of the council, and 2,500,000 copies were given public distribution. Retaliation came quickly. Three days later, on June 28, for the second time the Society’s property was seized and occupied, and by government decree its printing plant was closed.
[7]
But was the seizure of Watch Tower property by the German government on June 28, 1933 really because the Declaration of Facts was a bold protest against Nazi actions? No, quite the contrary. In a tape-recorded account of the history of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Germany, former Watch Tower Society “branch servant” or “overseer”
Konrad Franke tells that when he and another Jehovah’s Witness arrived at the Berlin Sporthalle Wilmersdorf where the 1933 Witness convention was being held, they were shocked. The building was bedecked with Swastika flags - evidently to please the Nazis. Then during the convention itself, the Witness faithful were called on to sing a hymn that they had not sung in Germany for years. While they had no objection to the words, the music was the same as that of the German national anthem, “Deutschland, Deutschland über alles.”[8]
As for the Declaration and an accompanying letter sent to
Adolf Hitler personally, they were nothing short of self-serving statements which attempted to ingratiate Jehovah’s Witnesses with the Nazis. Under a sub-section entitled “Jews,” the Declaration reads:
It is falsely charged by our enemies that we have received financial support for our work from the Jews. Nothing is farther from the truth. Up to this moment there never has been the slightest bit of money contributed to our work by Jews. We are the faithful followers of Christ Jesus and believe upon Him as the Savior of the world, whereas the Jews entirely reject Jesus Christ and emphatically deny that he is the Savior of the world sent of God for man’s good. This of itself should be sufficient proof to show that we receive no support from Jews and therefore the charges against us are maliciously false and could only proceed from Satan, our great enemy.
The greatest and most oppressive empire on earth is the Anglo-American empire. By this is meant the British Empire, of which the United States of America forms a part. It has been the commercial Jews of the British-American Empire that have built up and carried on Big Business as a means of exploiting and oppressing the peoples of many nations. This fact particularly applies to the cities of London and New York, the stronghold of Big Business. This fact is so manifest in America that there is a proverb concerning the city of New York which says: “the Jews own it, the Irish Catholics rule it, and the Americans pay the bills.” We have no fight with any of these persons mentioned but, as witnesses for Jehovah and in obedience to his commandment set forth in the Scriptures, we are compelled to call attention to the truth concerning the same in order that the people may be enlightened concerning God and his purpose.
[9]
That was not all. Besides damning the
League of Nations, the Declaration said:
“The present government of Germany has declared against Big Business oppressors and in opposition to the wrongful religious influence in the political affairs of the nation. Such is exactly our position….” [10]
Then it proclaimed:
“Instead of being against the principles advocated by the government of Germany, we stand squarely for such principles, and point out that Jehovah God through Christ Jesus will bring about the full realization of these principles.”
[11]
The letter sent to Hitler was equally compromising in nature. To ingratiate the Witnesses with the Nazi Führer, it claimed that the Watch Tower Society had been and was “outstandingly friendly to Germany.” But more than that, it falsely asserted that Rutherford and seven members of the Board of Directors of the Watch Tower Society had been sentenced to eighty years in prison “because the [Watch Tower] president refused to use two magazines published by him in the United States for war propaganda against Germany.”[12]
As Jehovah’s Witnesses were soon to discover, the Nazis were not impressed by either their Declaration or the Society’s letter to Hitler.
Many Germans were thoroughly aware that they had long been pro-Zionist, and Nazis officials were hardly so stupid as not to know that in many ways they stood in direct opposition to what the Hitler and his associates proclaimed and demanded. The Witnesses were internationalists in a religious sense and were generally quite tolerant of persons of other races; they regarded secular authority as of the devil; and, above all, they were openly anti-militaristic[13] - all factors which caused the nationalistic, racist, and militaristic Nazis to despise them. Thus the German government unleashed a wave of persecution against the Witnesses almost immediately.
On June 27, 1933, one day after they begin sending copies of the Declaration by registered mail to German officials, the Prussian Land or state banned them, and the police began to carry out widespread raids on their homes and places of business. As has been noted above, the Society’s Magdeburg offices were seized again on June 28.
Ultimately, between two and three million marks worth of Watch Tower property was confiscated and destroyed by the Nazis. [14] But it was then, and only then, that Rutherford and the Watch Tower Society decided to oppose Nazi policies in an uncompromising fashion. For some time thereafter, German Witnesses were divided over what they should do. [15]
Although after the Second World War most Jehovah’s Witnesses and others were unaware of the compromising actions of Witness leaders in the Germany of 1933, there were some who still remembered the Berlin convention.
Furthermore, copies of both the Declaration and the Watch Tower letter to Hitler remained extant. So when the Watch Tower Society published a history of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Germany in the 1974 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, it was necessary to deal with what were very embarrassing data in a way which would not make the Society’s Brooklyn leaders look guilty of violating their own teachings. Thus the full responsibility for the attempted compromise with Hitler and the Nazis was placed on the shoulders of Paul Balzereit, the Society’s German branch servant at the time.
Because of the importance of the Society’s present official position on this matter, the 1974 Yearbook account of the 1933 Berlin convention is given in full. It reads:
By the summer of 1933 the work of Jehovah’s Witnesses had been banned in the majority of German states. the brothers’ homes were being searched regularly and many brothers had been arrested. The flow of spiritual food was partially hampered, although only for a time; still many brothers were asking how long it would be possible to continue the work. In this situation the congregations were invited on very short notice to a convention to be held in Berlin on June 25. Since it was expected that many would be unable to attend because of the various bans, the congregations were encouraged to send at least one or several delegates. But, as it turned out, 7,000 brothers got there. For many of them it took three days, some riding bicycles the entire distance, whereas others went by truck, since the bus companies refused to rent buses to a banned organization.
Brother Rutherford, who, together with Brother Knorr, had come to Germany just a few days before in order to see what could be done to ensure the safety of the Society’s property, had prepared a declaration with Brother Balzereit to be presented to the convention delegates for adoption. It was a protest against the meddling of the Hitler government into the preaching work we were doing.
All high government officials, from the Reich’s president on down, were to receive a copy of the declaration, if possible, by registered mail. Several days before the convention started Brother Rutherford returned to America.Many in attendance were disappointed in the “declaration,” since in many points it failed to be as strong as the brothers had hoped. Brother Mütze from Dreseden, who had worked closely with Brother Balzereit up until that time, accused him later of having weakened the original text. It was not the first time that Brother Balzereit had watered down the clear and unmistakable language of the Society’s publications so as to avoid difficulties with governmental agencies.
A large number of brothers refused to adopt it just for this reason. In fact, a former pilgrim brother [traveling evangelist] by the name of Kipper refused to offer it for adoption and another brother substituted. It could not rightfully be said that the declaration was unanimously adopted, even though Brother Balzereit later notified Brother Rutherford that it had been.
The conventioners returned home tired and many were disappointed. They took 2,100,000 copies of the “declaration” home with them, however, and made fast work of distributing them and sending them to numerous persons in positions of responsibility. The copy sent to Hitler was accompanied by a letter that, in part, read:
“The Brooklyn presidency of the Watch Tower Society is and always has been exceedingly friendly to Germany. In 1918 the president of the Society and seven members of the Board of Directors in America were sentenced to 80 years’ imprisonment for the reason that the president refused to let two magazines in America, which he edited, be used in war propaganda against Germany.“
Even though the declaration had been weakened and many brothers could not wholeheartedly agree to its adoption, yet the government was enraged and started a wave of persecution against those who had distributed it.
[16]
The question now arises, how well does this account stand up?
In the first place, it continues to assert wrongly in the tradition of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose that there were 7,000 present at the 1933 Berlin convention. The Declaration is clear in repeatedly asserting that there were only 5,000 delegates there. But that is a small matter.
What is more significant is that the 1974 Yearbook account assumes - apparently on no more authority than the unsubstantiated beliefs of a “
Brother Mütze from Dreseden”-that
Paul Balzereit was the one who “weakened” the Declaration.
Balzereit may well have been responsible for having the Declaration translated into German, and he may also have been responsible for drafting the letter to Hitler. Yet there is clear evidence to suggest that he did not tamper with the wording of the Declaration.
First, the Watch Tower Society published the English version of the Declaration - which is virtually identical to the German version - in the 1934 Year Book of Jehovah’s Witnesses as its official statement to Hitler, the German government, and German officials, high and low; and this it would not have done without Rutherford’s full approval.
Second, the English version of the Declaration is clearly written in the judge’s own bombastic style.
Third, the statements directed against the Jews in the Declaration are more in keeping with what an American such as Rutherford would have written rather than a German. How, for example, would Balzereit know the “proverb,” so called, concerning New York which says: “the Jews own it, the Irish Catholics rule it, and the Americans pay the bills”? Fourth, Rutherford had been guilty of a similar compromise with secular authority in the United States in 1918 in a vain attempt to escape imprisonment.[17]
Then finally, he was an autocrat supreme who would not have brooked the serious type of insubordination that Balzereit would have been guilty of had he “weakened” the Declaration.
While it must be admitted that this evidence, although strong, is circumstantial rather than direct, this makes little difference in the long run. Regardless of who wrote the Declaration, the fact is that it was published as an official document of the Watch Tower Society.
Thus the American leaders of the Society - and Judge J. F. Rutherford in particular - were directly responsible for what was outright anti-Semitism and a willingness to compromise their loudly trumpeted principle of “Christian neutrality” in order to continue their publishing and preaching work in Germany.
So the leadership of Jehovah’s Witnesses, like the those who led almost every other church, sect, and cult in the Third Reich were willing, under the circumstances of the times, to betray their most sacred values.
But that is not all.
The Watch Tower Society is guilty of an ongoing cover-up of its past concerning these matters. While the Society still boasts of the bravery of German Jehovah’s Witnesses in their refusal to submit to the dictates of Nazism, it also continues to try to hide its leaders’ attempt to compromise with the Nazis in 1933. Although The Watchtower of October 1, 1984 quoted from Christine King’s The Nazi State and the New Religions, its publishers failed to note what Dr. King had written about the Society’s 1933 Declaration of Facts.
For example, in a brief evaluation of that document, she makes what, from a Witness standpoint, is a rather damning remark. She says:
“The document is a master of its kind and worthy of the other four sects [the Christian Scientists, the Latter-day Saints, the Seventh-day Adventists and members of the New Apostolic Church] all of whom supported, in one way or another, the Nazi state.”
[18]
In another paragraph, she remarks:
“Having attempted to assure the authorities by the Declaration of Facts, of their good citizenship, having interpreted and explained their teachings in a way, which given the preoccupations of the regime, was designed to allay fears and offer a hint of compromise, the Witnesses seemed to have expected little further harassment. Had the Declaration not condemned with the Nazis, the League of Nations, had it not described National Socialism as standing out against the injustices Germans had suffered since 1919 and had it not ended with a personal appeal to the Führer?”
[19]
So it is hardly possible that the present-day leadership of the Society can be ignorant of the Declaration and its compromising, anti-Semitic nature.
Despite such statements by Dr. King, however, the June 8, 1985 Awake! (p. 10) damned both the Catholic and the Protestant clergy for supporting Nazism and proclaimed: “However, there was one group in Germany that courageously championed Christian principles. That group was Jehovah’s Witnesses. Unlike the clergy and their followers, the Witnesses refused to compromise with Hitler and the Nazis. They refused to violate God’s commandments. They would not break their Christian neutrality in political affairs. (See Isaiah 2:2-4; John 17:16; James 4:4.) They did not attribute Heil, or salvation, to Hitler, as did the overwhelming majority of their flocks.” And more recent issues of both Awake! and The Watchtower have taken much the same tack.
Awake! published several articles on the Holocaust in its April 8, 1989 issue in which it argued rightly that many others besides Jews had died as a result of Nazi extermination policies. Dealing with the persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses from 1933 to the collapse of the Third Reich in 1945, one of these articles, “The Holocaust: Victims or Martyrs?”, states on page 12:
“They [Jehovah's Witnesses] were of many nationalities but were misconstrued as a pacifist threat to Germany’s National Socialist regime because of their Christian stand of neutrality and refusal to be incorporated into the war effort of any nation. Hitler called them a `brood to be exterminated.’”
Significantly, this article also quotes Christine King, but it makes no mention of either the Declaration of Facts or the Society’s 1933 letter to Hitler.
Then, just after the publication of the April 8, 1989 Awake!, a series of articles appeared in the April 1 and 15 and May 1 and 15, 1989 issues of The Watchtower on the subject of “Babylon the Great.” Referring to the great “whore” or “harlot” described at Revelation 17, these articles identified her as the world-wide empire of false religion which has “committed fornication with the kings of the earth.” Accordingly, The Watchtower censured both Catholicism and Protestantism - which they regard as parts of Babylon the Great - in the harshest terms for having supported various European secular governments in past centuries and, especially, for having been in league with Nazism during the Second World War. But not once in these articles does the anonymous author admit that, from the standpoint of their own teachings, Watch Tower leaders were also were willing to commit “fornication” with the rulers of the Third Reich had the Nazis been willing to let them get into bed with them.
What is even more serious is that when confronted with the facts relating to the Watch Tower German Declaration of 1933, the Society’s spokesmen have denied them categorically. In 1985, when I published a brief synopsis of the nature of the Declaration in my book Apocalypse Delayed,[20] Watch Tower officials attacked me in the strongest terms, practically calling me a liar.
The Society’s public relations officer for Canada,
Walter Graham, claimed “the declaration was neither to placate Hitler nor anti-Semitic,” and he said respecting me:
“
Penton does have an axe to grind. He has been trying to discredit the Jehovah’s Witnesses ever since he was removed from the society.”
Yet curiously, he admitted that he had not read the evidence that I had presented. He said: We aren’t interested in reading it. We’re not interested in what James Penton does, writes or thinks, because he has chosen not to be one of us.”[21] In a similar vein, Eugene Rosam, a senior Watch Tower official of Jewish ancestry, refused to comment on
Apocalypse Delayed.“We have no comment on the publication,” said
Rosam. “Anybody can write a book and get it published. It’s just surprising some people refer to it as if it were Gospel.”[22]
It is not surprising that Jehovah’s Witness leaders are reluctant to discuss the nature of the Declaration, the Watch Tower letter to Hitler, or the Berlin convention of June 1933 any more than is necessary. After all, no religious organization is anxious to broadcast its past sins. Yet the cover-up surrounding the nature of those events is hypocritical, especially since the Watch Tower Society is so uncharitable towards other religions over their collaboration with Nazism. None the less, the Watch Tower Society has no other real option than to attempt to continue that cover-up. Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that the collective body of persons who have governed them since 1919 have been and are the “anointed footstep followers Jesus Christ, described as `the remaining ones of her [God's heavenly organization's] seed, who observe the commandments of God and have the work of bearing witness to Jesus.’” [23]
Thus to admit that they had compromised with a regime such as that of Hitler would be contradictory to this claim. On the basis of their own teachings, it would make them just another part of
Babylon the Great! So in order to demonstrate clearly that the account
Admin comment
The more material I post here, the less comfortable I am with the dichotomy that is being produced. I know some extremely sincere and God fearing Jehovahs Witnesses. It was not and is not my intention to denigrate these people.
I guess the issue is simply that the WTBTS is basically not the organization that they portray themselves to be. This is sad for the rank and file JW who has been fed a few pieces of dangerous misinformation along with Bible truths.
Given the proclivities of members of the Governing body, and revelations about such, it becomes harder and harder to equate them with being the representative of God on earth.
That aside, in reality if the average JW were to disregard all references to “anointed, Gods organization on earth, Faithful and discrete slave, heavenly class, mother organization” and just look to the other explanations as good guides to examining the truth, they would be not far from the complete picture.
Mixing in truth with falsehood is a a good way to leave a person uncertain.
February 19, 2008 Posted by Admin Staff | Admin Comment, Christianity, Jehovahs Witnesses | | No Comments